Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Contents
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-1 Initial Screening Of Biosparging Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-7 Detailed Evaluation Of Biosparging Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-9 Site Characteristics That Affect Biosparging . . . . . . . . Intrinsic Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil Structure And Stratification . . . . . . . . . . . Temperature Of The Groundwater . . . . . . . . . pH Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Microbial Population Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nutrient Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iron Concentration Dissolved In Groundwater Constituent Characteristics That Affect Biosparging Chemical Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concentration And Toxicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vapor Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Product Composition And Boiling Point . . . . Henry*s Law Constant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-9 . VIII-9 VIII-11 VIII-11 VIII-11 VIII-12 VIII-13 VIII-13 VIII-14 VIII-14 VIII-15 VIII-17 VIII-17 VIII-18
Laboratory Treatability And Field Pilot Scale Studies . . . . . . . . . VIII-18 Evaluation Of The Biosparging System Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-20 Rationale For The Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-21 Components Of A Biosparging System Sparge And Extraction Wells . . Manifold Piping . . . . . . . . . . . . Compressed Air Equipment . . Monitoring And Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-23 VIII-24 VIII-27 VIII-28 VIII-29
Evaluation Of Operation And Monitoring Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-30 Startup Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-31 Long-Term Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-31 Remedial Progress Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-32 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-34 Checklist: Can Biosparging Be Used At This Site? . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-35
October 1994
VIII-iii
List Of Exhibits
Number VIII-1 Title Page
Biosparging System (Used With Soil Vapor Extraction) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-2 Advantages And Disadvantages Of Biosparging . . . . . . . . VIII-3 Biosparging Evaluation Process Flow Chart . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-4 Initial Screening For Biosparging Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . VIII-8 Key Parameters Used To Evaluate The Suitability Of Biosparging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-9 Intrinsic Permeability And Biosparging Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-10 Heterotrophic Bacteria And Biosparging Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-13 Dissolved Iron And Biosparging Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . VIII-14 Chemical Structure And Biodegradability . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-15 Constituent Concentration And Biosparging Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-16 Cleanup Concentrations And Biosparging Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-16 Vapor Pressures Of Common Petroleum Constituents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-17 Petroleum Product Boiling Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-18 Henry's Law Constant Of Common Petroleum Constituents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-19 Pilot Test Data Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-21 Schematic Of Biosparging System Used With Vapor Extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-24 Well Orientation And Site Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-25 Biosparging/Vapor Extraction Well Configurations . . . . VIII-26
VIII-6
VIII-7
VIII-11
VIII-12
VIII-13 VIII-14
VIII-15 VIII-16
VIII-17 VIII-18
VIII-iv
October 1994
Combined Biosparging/Vapor Extraction System Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-27 Vertical Sparging Well Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-28 Horizontal Sparging Well Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-29 Monitoring And Control Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-30 System Monitoring Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-32 Concentration Reduction And Mass Removal Behavior For Biosparging Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII-33
October 1994
VIII-v
October 1994
VIII-1
VIII-2
October 1994
Advantages r Readily available equipment; easy to install. r Creates minimal disturbance to site operations. r Short treatment times, 6 months to 2 years under favorable conditions. r Is cost competitive. r Enhances the effectiveness of air sparging for treating a wider range of petroleum hydrocarbons. r Requires no removal, treatment, storage, or discharge of groundwater. r Low air injection rates minimize potential need for vapor capture and treatment.
Disadvantages r Can only be used in environments where air sparging is suitable (e.g., uniform and permeable soils, unconfined aquifer, no free-phase hydrocarbons, no nearby subsurface confined spaces). r Some interactions among complex chemical, physical, and biological processes are not well understood. r Lack of field and laboratory data to support design considerations. r Potential for inducing migration of constituents.
This chapter will assist you in evaluating a corrective action plan (CAP) that proposes biosparging as a remedy for petroleum-contaminated groundwater and soil. The evaluation process is summarized in a flow diagram shown in Exhibit VIII-3, which serves as a roadmap for the decisions you will make during your evaluation. A checklist has also been provided at the end of this chapter for you to use as a tool to both evaluate the completeness of the CAP and to focus attention on areas where additional information may be needed. The evaluation process can be divided into the four steps described below. r Step 1: An initial screening of biosparging effectiveness allows you to quickly gauge whether biosparging is likely to be effective, moderately effective, or ineffective. r Step 2: A detailed evaluation of biosparging effectiveness provides further screening criteria to confirm whether biosparging is likely to be effective. You will need to identify site and constituent characteristics, compare them to ranges where biosparging is effective, and evaluate pilot study plans.
October 1994
VIII-3
r Step 3: An evaluation of the biosparging system design allows you to determine whether basic design information has been defined, whether necessary design components have been specified, whether construction process flow designs are consistent with standard practice, and if a detailed field pilot scale test has been properly performed. r Step 4: An evaluation of the operation and monitoring plans allows you to determine whether start-up and long-term system operation and monitoring is of sufficient scope and frequency and whether remedial progress monitoring plans are appropriate.
October 1994
VIII-7
In general, the type of soil will determine its permeability. Fine-grained soils (e.g., clays and silts) have lower permeabilities than coarse-grained soils (e.g., sands and gravels). The biodegradability of a petroleum constituent is a measure of its ability to be metabolized by hydrocarbondegrading bacteria or other microorganisms. Petroleum constituents are generally biodegradable, regardless of their molecular weight, as long as indigenous microorganisms have an adequate supply of oxygen and nutrients. For heavier constituents (which are generally less volatile and less soluble than lighter constituents), biodegradation will exceed volatilization as the primary removal mechanism, even though biodegradation is generally slower for heavier constituents than for lighter constituents. Exhibit VIII-4 is an initial screening tool that you can use to help assess the potential effectiveness of biosparging for a given site. To use this tool, first determine the type of soil present and the type of petroleum product released at the site. Information provided in the following section will allow a more thorough evaluation of effectiveness and will identify areas that could require special design considerations.
VIII-8
October 1994
Site Characteristics Intrinsic permeability Soil structure and stratification Temperature pH Microbial population density Nutrient concentrations Dissolved iron concentration
Constituent Characteristics Chemical structure Concentration and toxicity Vapor pressure Product composition and boiling point Henrys law constant
The remainder of this section describes each parameter, why it is important to biosparging, how it can be determined, and its range for effective biosparging. If a vapor extraction system is considered for vapor control requirements, additional factors such as depth to groundwater and moisture content of the unsaturated zone should be examined to determine if vapor extraction is suitable. See Chapter II: Soil Vapor Extraction for the evaluation of the vapor extraction component, if used.
October 1994
VIII-9
Intrinsic permeability varies over 13 orders of magnitude (from 10-16 to 10-3 cm2) for the wide range of earth materials, although a more limited range applies to most soil types (10-13 to 10-5 cm2). Intrinsic permeability of the saturated zone for biosparging is best determined from field tests, but it can also be estimated from soil boring logs and laboratory tests. Procedures for these tests are described in EPA (1991a). Coarse-grained soils (e.g., sands) have greater intrinsic permeability than fine-grained soils (e.g., clays and silts). Use the values shown in Exhibit VIII-6 to determine if the intrinsic permeability of the soils at the site are within the range of effectiveness for biosparging.
Intrinsic Permeability (k)(cm2) k > 10-9 10-9 > k > 10-10 k < 10-10
Biosparging Effectiveness Generally effective. May be effective; needs further evaluation. Marginal effectiveness to ineffective.
Intrinsic permeability of saturated-zone soils is usually determined in the field by aquifer pump tests that measure hydraulic conductivity. You can convert hydraulic conductivity to intrinsic permeability using the following equation:
k ' K (/Dg)
where:
k = intrinsic permeability (cm2) K = hydraulic conductivity (cm/sec) F = water viscosity (g/cm sec) D = water density (g/cm3) g = acceleration due to gravity (cm/sec2) At 20EC: F/Dg = 1.02 10-5 cm/sec
Convert k from cm2 to darcy, multiply by 108. Intrinsic permeability of the unsaturated zone can be estimated from the intrinsic permeability of the saturated zone if similar soil types are present. Alternatively, it can be determined in the field by conducting permeability tests or soil vapor extraction pilot studies. (See Chapter II: Soil Vapor Extraction.)
VIII-10
October 1994
pH Levels
The optimum pH for bacterial growth is approximately 7; the acceptable range for biosparging is between 6 and 8. If the groundwater pH is outside of this range, it is possible to adjust the pH prior to and during biosparging operations. However, pH adjustment is often not cost-effective because natural buffering capacity of the groundwater system generally necessitates continuous adjustment and monitoring throughout the biosparging operation. In addition, efforts to adjust pH
October 1994
VIII-11
may lead to rapid changes in pH, which are also detrimental to bacterial activity.
VIII-12
October 1994
Biosparging Effectiveness Generally effective. May be effective; needs further evaluation to determine if toxic conditions are present.
Nutrient Concentrations
Bacteria require inorganic nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphate to support cell growth and sustain biodegradation processes. Nutrients may be available in sufficient quantities in the aquifer but, more frequently, nutrients need to be added to maintain adequate bacterial populations. However, excessive amounts of certain nutrients (i.e., phosphate and sulfate) can repress metabolism. A rough approximation of minimum nutrient requirements can be based on the stoichiometry of the overall biodegradation process: C-source + N-source + O2 + Minerals + Nutrients ---> Cell mass + CO2 + H2O + other metabolic by-products Different empirical formulas of bacterial cell mass have been proposed; the most widely accepted are C5H7O2N and C60H87O32N12P. Using the empirical formulas for cell biomass and other assumptions, the carbon:nitrogen:phosphorus ratios necessary to enhance biodegradation fall in the range of 100:10:l to 100:1:0.5, depending on the constituents and bacteria involved in the biodegradation process. Chemical analyses of soil samples from the site (collected from below the water table) should be completed to determine the available concentrations of nitrogen (expressed as ammonia) and phosphate that are naturally in the soil. These types of analyses are routinely conducted in agronomic laboratories that test soil fertility for farmers. Using the stoichiometric ratios, the need for nutrient addition can be determined by using an average concentration of the constituents (carbon source) in the soils to be treated. If nitrogen addition is necessary, slow release sources should be used. Nitrogen addition can lower pH, depending on the amount and type of nitrogen added.
October 1994
VIII-13
can precipitate within the saturated zone and occlude soil pore space. On a large scale this could reduce the region available for air (and groundwater) flow, thereby reducing permeability. Precipitation of iron oxide occurs predominantly in the saturated zone near sparging well screens where oxygen content (from injected air) is the highest. This oxidation can render sparging wells useless after even short periods of operation; installation of new wells in different locations would then be required. Verify that laboratory measurements of total dissolved iron have been completed for groundwater samples from the site. Use Exhibit VIII-8 to determine the range in which dissolved iron is a concern for biosparging effectiveness.
VIII-14
October 1994
Example Constituents n-butane, l-pentane, n-octane Nonane Methyl butane, dimethylpentenes, methyloctanes Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes Propylbenzenes Decanes Dodecanes Tridecanes Tetradecanes
r Gasoline r Diesel, kerosene r r r r r r r r Diesel Kerosene Heating fuels Lubricating oils Diesel Kerosene Heating oil Lubricating oils
Less degradable
October 1994
VIII-15
Petroleum constituents > 50,000 ppm or Heavy metals > 2,500 ppm
Ineffective; toxic or inhibitory conditions to bacterial growth exist. Long remediation times likely.
laboratory studies and should be below the level required for cleanup. Although the threshold limit varies greatly depending on bacteria-specific and constituent-specific features, constituent concentrations below 0.1 ppm are generally not achievable by biological treatment alone. In addition, experience has shown that reductions in total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations (TPH) greater than 95 percent can be very difficult to achieve because of the presence of recalcitrant or nondegradable petroleum hydrocarbons that are included in the TPH analysis. Identify the average starting concentrations and the cleanup concentrations in the CAP for individual constituents and TPH. If a cleanup level lower than 0.1 ppm is required for any individual constituent or a reduction in TPH greater than 95 percent is required to reach the cleanup level for TPH, either a pilot study should be required to demonstrate the ability of biosparging to achieve these reductions at the site or another technology should be considered. These conditions are summarized in Exhibit VIII-11.
VIII-16
October 1994
Vapor Pressure
Vapor pressure is important in evaluating the extent to which constituents will be volatilized rather than biodegraded. The vapor pressure of a constituent is a measure of its tendency to evaporate. More precisely, it is the pressure that a vapor exerts when in equilibrium with its pure liquid or solid form. Constituents with higher vapor pressures are generally volatilized rather than biodegraded. In general, constituents with vapor pressures higher than 0.5 mm Hg will likely be volatilized by the induced air stream before they biodegrade. Constituents with vapor pressures lower than 0.5 mm Hg will not volatilize to a significant degree and can instead undergo in situ biodegradation by bacteria. As previously discussed, petroleum products contain many different chemical constituents. Each constituent will be volatilized (rather than biodegraded) to different degrees by a biosparging system, depending on its vapor pressure. If concentrations of volatile constituents are significant, use of a vapor extraction system and treatment of extracted vapors may be needed. Exhibit VIII-12 lists vapor pressures of select petroleum constituents.
Constituent Methyl t-butyl ether Benzene Toluene Ethylene dibromide Ethylbenzene Xylenes Naphthalene Tetraethyl lead
October 1994
VIII-17
combination of volatilization and biodegradation in a biosparging system. The boiling point ranges for common petroleum products are shown in Exhibit VIII-13.
Pa ' Ha Xa
where: Pa = partial pressure of constituent a in air Ha = Henrys law constant (atm) Xa = solution concentration of constituent a (mole fraction)
Henry*s law constants for several common constituents found in petroleum products are shown in Exhibit VIII-14. Constituents with Henry*s law constants of greater than 100 atmospheres are generally considered volatile and, hence, more likely to be volatilized rather than biodegraded.
VIII-18
October 1994
Constituent Tetraethyl lead Ethylbenzene Xylenes Benzene Toluene Naphthalene Ethylene dibromide Methyl t-butyl ether
groundwater is in a confined aquifer. The scope of laboratory studies or pilot testing should be commensurate with the size of the area to be treated, the reduction in constituent concentrations required, and the results of the initial effectiveness screening. Some commonly used laboratory and pilot-scale studies are described below. r Laboratory Microbial Screening tests are used to determine the presence of a population of naturally occurring bacteria that may be capable of degrading petroleum product constituents. Samples of soils from the aquifer are analyzed in an offsite laboratory. Microbial plate counts determine the number of colony forming units (CFU) of heterotrophic bacteria and petroleum-degrading bacteria present per unit mass of dry soil. These tests are relatively inexpensive. r Laboratory Biodegradation Studies can be used to estimate the rate of oxygen delivery and to determine if the addition of inorganic nutrients is necessary. However, laboratory studies cannot duplicate field conditions, and field tests are more reliable. A common biodegradation study for biosparging is the slurry study. Slurry studies involve the preparation of numerous soil microcosms consisting of small samples of site soils from the aquifer mixed into a slurry with the site groundwater. The microcosms are divided into several groups which may include control groups which are sterilized to destroy any bacteria, non-nutrified test groups which have been provided oxygen but not nutrients, and nutrified test groups which are supplied both oxygen and nutrients. Microcosms from each group are analyzed periodically (usually weekly) during the test period (usually 4 to 12 weeks) for bacterial population counts and constituent concentrations. Results of slurry studies should be
October 1994
VIII-19
considered as representing optimal conditions because slurry microcosms do not consider the effects of limited oxygen delivery or soil heterogeneity. r Field Biosparging Treatability Tests determine the effectiveness of biosparging by characterizing the rate of biodegradation, the bubble radius, and the potential for plume migration. Data collected from the studies are used to specify design parameters such as the number and density of the wells and the sparging rate. The study usually includes sparging a single well while its effects are being measured in monitoring wells or probes spaced at various distances. Ideally, three or more monitoring wells surrounding the plume should be installed. These monitoring wells should be screened above the saturated zone and through the dissolved phase plume. They can be used to monitor both dissolved and vapor phase migration, to monitor changes in dissolved oxygen, and to measure changes in the depth to groundwater. If vapor extraction is to be included in the design, the pilot study should be accomplished in two parts. The first portion of the test should be conducted using vapor extraction only and evaluated as described in Chapter II (Soil Vapor Extraction) without the biosparging system being operated. This portion of the pilot test will establish the baseline vapor extraction levels, the extent of the nonsparged vapor plume, the extraction well radius of influence and intrinsic permeability of the unsaturated zone (discussed in Chapter II). The second portion of the study would involve the installation of a sparge point with several vapor extraction points in the vadose zone. Exhibit VIII-15 summarizes the parameters and data that would be useful in a biosparging pilot study.
VIII-20
October 1994
Monitoring point pressure gauges Well-head pressure gauge Vapor extraction exhaust flame ionization detector (FID) readings and CO2 probe (or other suitable detection device) Water level tape at monitoring wells or pressure transducers and data logger Monitoring point pressure gauge Compressor discharge flow gauge Monitoring well and vapor point FID readings (or other suitable detection device) Carbon dioxide probe Water level tape at monitoring wells or pressure transducers and data logger Dissolved oxygen and carbon dioxide probes at monitoring wells
October 1994
VIII-21
interpreted as an air flow zone that is thoroughly permeated with injected air when these observations actually represent localized sparging around sparsely distributed air flow channels. The bubble radius depends primarily on the hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer material in which sparging takes place. Other factors that affect the bubble radius include soil heterogeneities and differences between lateral and vertical permeability of the soils. Generally, the design bubble radius can range from 5 feet for fine-grained soils to 100 feet for coarse-grained soils. r Sparging Air Flow Rate. The sparging air flow rate required to provide sufficient air flow to enhance biological activity is site specific and will be determined via the pilot test. Typical air flow rates are much lower than for air sparging, ranging from 3 to 25 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) per injection well. Pulsing of the air flow (i.e., turning the system on and off at specified intervals) may provide better distribution and mixing of the air in the contaminated saturated zone, thereby allowing for greater contact with the dissolved phase contaminants. If a vapor extraction system is used, it should have a greater flow capacity and greater area of influence than the biosparging system. Typically the SVE extraction rates range from 1.25 to 5 times greater than the biosparging rate. r Sparging Air Pressure is the pressure at which air is injected below the water table. Injection of air below the water table requires pressure greater than the static water pressure (1 psig for every 2.3 ft of hydraulic head) and the head necessary to overcome capillary forces of the water in the soil pores near the injection point. A typical system will be operated at approximately 10 to 15 psig. Excessive pressure may cause fracturing of the soils and create permanent air channels that can significantly reduce biosparging effectiveness. r Nutrient Formulation and Delivery Rate (if needed) will be based on the results of the laboratory tests and pilot study results. Common nutrient additions include nitrogen (in an aqueous solution containing ammonium ions) and phosphorus (in an aqueous solution containing phosphate ions). Note that state regulations may either require permits for nutrient injection or prohibit them entirely. r Initial Constituent Concentrations will be measured during pilot-scale studies. They establish a baseline for estimating the constituent mass removal rate and the system operation time requirements. In addition, they will help to determine whether vapor treatment will be required. r Initial Concentrations of Oxygen and CO2 in the saturated zone will be measured during pilot studies. They are used to establish system operating requirements, to provide baseline levels of subsurface biological activity, and to allow measurement of the systems progress.
VIII-22
October 1994
r Required Final Dissolved Constituent Concentrations in the saturated zone are either defined by state regulations as remedial action levels or determined on a site-specific basis using transport models and risk assessment calculations. They will determine which areas of the site require treatment and when biosparging system operations can be terminated. r Required Remedial Cleanup Time may influence the design of the system. The designer may vary the spacing of the sparging wells to speed remediation to meet cleanup deadlines, if required. r Saturated Zone Volume To Be Treated is determined by state action levels or a site-specific risk assessment using site characterization data for the groundwater. r Discharge Limitations and Monitoring Requirements are usually established by state regulations but must be considered by system designers to ensure that monitoring ports are included in the system. Discharge limitations imposed by state air quality regulations will determine whether offgas treatment is required. r Site Construction Limitations (e.g., building locations, utilities, buried objects, residences) must be identified and considered in the design process.
A nutrient delivery system is sometimes included in biosparging design. If nutrients are added, the design should specify the type of nutrient addition and the construction details. Note that state regulations may either require permits for nutrient injection wells or prohibit them entirely. If an SVE system is used for vapor control, the following components and information will also be needed: r Vapor pretreatment design r Vapor treatment system selection r Blower specification
October 1994
VIII-23
Exhibit VIII-16 provides a schematic diagram of a typical biosparging system used with vapor extraction. Chapter II: Soil Vapor Extraction, should be consulted for information on the design of the vapor extraction portion of the remedial system (if necessary), including vapor pretreatment design, vapor treatment system selection, and blower specification.
VIII-24
October 1994
Horizontal wells
r Shallow groundwater table (< 25 feet) r Zone of contamination within a specific stratigraphic unit r System under an operational facility r Thickness of saturated zone (< 10 feet)
Well Placement And Number of Wells. Exhibit VIII-18, Biosparging/Vapor Extraction Well Configurations, shows various configurations that can be used in laying out biosparging systems used in conjunction with vapor extraction. The essential goals in configuring the wells and monitoring points are (1) to optimize the influence on the plume, thereby maximizing the treatment efficiency of the system, and (2) to provide optimum monitoring and vapor extraction points to ensure minimal migration of the vapor plume and no undetected migration of either the dissolved phase or vapor phase plumes. In shallow applications, in large plume areas, or in locations under buildings or pavements, horizontal vapor extraction wells are very cost effective and efficient for controlling vapor migration. Exhibit VIII-19 is a typical layout for a system that surrounds and contains a plume and includes sparging wells and vapor extraction wells. The number and location of extraction wells (if needed) can be determined by using several methods as discussed in Chapter II: Soil Vapor Extraction. However, the following general points should be considered: r Closer well spacing is often appropriate in areas of high contaminant concentrations in order to enhance air distribution (and oxygen delivery rate), thus increasing the rate of biodegradation. r If a surface seal exists or is planned for the design, the extraction wells can be spaced slightly farther apart. Surface seals force air to be drawn from a greater distance rather than directly from the surface. r At sites with stratified soils, wells screened in strata with low permeabilities might require closer well spacing than wells screened in strata with higher permeabilities.
October 1994
VIII-25
Source: Advances in Air Sparging Design, The Hazardous Waste Consultant, Vol. 11, Issue 1, January/February 1993, p. 1-4.
Well Construction. Sparging wells are generally constructed of 1- to 5inch PVC, galvanized steel, or stainless steel pipe. The screened interval is normally 1-3 feet in length and is generally set 5-15 feet below the deepest extent of adsorbed contaminants. Setting the screen at a deeper interval requires higher pressures on the system, but generally does not achieve higher sparge rates. Increased screen length will not improve system efficiency because air tends to exit at the top portion of the screen where hydraulic pressure head is lower. Sparge points must be properly grouted to prevent short circuiting of the air. Horizontal injection wells should be designed and installed carefully to ensure that air exits from along the entire screen length. Perforated pipe, rather than well screening, is sometimes preferred for horizontal wells. Exhibits VIII20 and VIII-21 present typical vertical and horizontal sparging well constructions, respectively.
VIII-26
October 1994
Injection wells should be fitted with check valves to prevent potential line fouling. Fouling occurs when pressure in the saturated zone forces water up the sparge point while the system is shut down. Each sparging well should also be equipped with a pressure gauge and flow regulator to enable adjustments in sparging air distribution. Refer to Chapter II: Soil Vapor Extraction for vapor extraction well details.
Manifold Piping
Manifold piping connects sparging wells to an air compressor. Piping can be placed above or below grade depending on site operations, ambient temperature, and local building codes. Below-grade piping is more common and is installed in shallow utility trenches that lead from the sparging wellhead vault(s) to a central equipment location. The piping can either be manifolded in the equipment area or connected to a common compressor main that supplies the wells in series; in this case, flow control valves are located at the wellhead. Piping to the well locations should be sloped toward the well so that condensate or entrained groundwater will flow back toward the well.
October 1994
VIII-27
The pressurized air distribution system can be made of metal pipe or rubber-reinforced air hose. PVC pipe should not be connected directly to the compressor because of the high temperatures of air leaving the compressor which can diminish the integrity of the PVC. If pipe trenches are used for the distribution system, they must be sealed to prevent short circuiting of air flow.
VIII-28
October 1994
October 1994
VIII-29
Pressure gauge
Sampling port
Control Equipment Flow control valves/ regulators r At each vapor extraction well head or manifold branch r Dilution or bleed valve at manifold to blower r At header to each sparge point r Ball valve r Gate valve r Dilution/ambient air bleed valve r Gate valve r Dilution/ambient air bleed valve
VIII-30
October 1994
Startup Operations
The startup phase should begin with only the SVE portion of the system (if used) as described in Chapter II. After the SVE system is adjusted, the air sparging system should be started. Generally, 7 to 10 days of manifold valving adjustments are required to adjust the air sparging system. These adjustments should balance flow to optimize the carbon dioxide production and oxygen uptake rate. Monitoring data should include sparge pressure and flows, vacuum readings for SVE, depth of groundwater, vapor concentrations, dissolved oxygen levels, CO2 levels, and pH. During the initial start up, these parameters should be monitored hourly once the flow is stabilized. Vapor concentration should also be monitored in any nearby utility lines, basements, or other subsurface confined spaces. Other monitoring of the system should be done in accordance with the SVE requirements from Chapter II.
Long-Term Operations
To evaluate the performance of a biosparging system the following parameters should be monitored weekly to biweekly after the startup operation: r Contaminant levels, carbon dioxide level, dissolved oxygen level, and pH in the groundwater. r Contaminant level, oxygen, and carbon dioxide in the effluent stack and the manifold of the SVE system (if used). r Pressures and flow rates in the sparging wells and, if SVE is used, in the extraction wells. It should be noted that the samples from the groundwater monitoring wells that will be analyzed to track dissolved contaminant concentrations should be collected after a short period of time following system shutdown. Sampling at these times allows the subsurface environment to reach equilibrium. Samples collected during sparging operations may have lower concentrations of dissolved contaminants than does the surrounding aquifer. This result could lead to the erroneous conclusion that remediation is occurring throughout the aquifer because the monitoring wells may serve as preferential flow paths for the injected air. Exhibit VIII-23 provides a brief synopsis of system monitoring requirements.
October 1994
VIII-31
Where To Monitor r Air sparging wellheads r Sparge and extraction wells (if used) r Manifold r Extraction wells (if SVE is used) r Groundwater and soil vapor monitoring points
r Vacuum readings (if SVE is used) r D.O., CO2, pH r Depth to groundwater Remedial (ongoing) Weekly to biweekly r Vacuum readings
r Groundwater monitoring wells r Extraction wells (if SVE is used) r Effluent stack (if SVE is used) r Manifold (if SVE is used) r Air sparging wellheads r Groundwater and soil vapor monitoring points r Groundwater monitoring wells
r Vapor concentrations
Quarterly to annually
VIII-32
October 1994
The plot can be used to show the impact of the biosparging operation. As biosparging reaches the limit of its ability to biodegrade further, the reduction of dissolved constituents reaches asymptotic conditions. This effect is also reflected in the concentrations of oxygen, CO2, and VOC in the vapors released from the system. A plot of this effect is demonstrated in Exhibit VIII-24. When asymptotic behavior begins to occur, the operator should evaluate alternatives that increase the mass transfer removal rate (e.g., pulsing, or turning off the system for a period of time and then restarting it). Other more aggressive steps to further reduce constituent concentrations can include the installation of additional sparging points or vapor extraction wells.
Exhibit VIII-24 Concentration Reduction And Mass Removal Behavior For Biosparging Systems
If asymptotic behavior is persistent for periods greater than about six months and the concentration rebound is sufficiently small following periods of temporary system shutdown, the performance of the biosparging system should be reviewed with regulatory agencies to determine whether remedial goals have been reached. If further contaminant reduction is desired, another remedial technology may need to be considered.
October 1994
VIII-33
References
Norris, R.D., Hinchee, R.E., Brown, R.A., McCarty, P.L., Semprini, L., Wilson, J.T., Kampbell, D.H., Reinhard, M., Bower, E.J., Borden, R.C., Vogel, T.M., Thomas, J.M., and C.H. Ward. Handbook of Bioremediation. Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press, 1994. Norris, R.D., Hinchee, R.E., Brown, R.A., McCarty, P.L., Semprini, L., Wilson, J.T., Kampbell, D.H., Reinhard, M., Bower, E.J., Borden, R.C., Vogel, T.M., Thomas, J.M., and C.H. Ward. In-Situ Bioremediation of Ground Water and Geological Material: A Review of Technologies. Ada, OK: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. EPA/5R-93/124, 1993. Riser-Roberts, E. Bioremediation of Petroleum Contaminated Sites. NCEL, Port Hueneme, CA: C. K. Smoley Publishers, CRC Press, 1992. Flathman, P.E. and D.E. Jerger. Bioremediation Field Experience. Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK: Lewis Publishers, CRC Press, Inc., 1994. Weston, Inc., Roy F. Remedial Technologies for Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA: Lewis Publishers, 1988. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A Technology Assessment of Soil Vapor Extraction and Air Sparging. Cincinnati, OH: Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/R-92/173, 1992.
VIII-34
October 1994
3. Evaluation Of The Biosparging System Design Yes No t t Examine the sparging air pressure. Will the proposed pressure be sufficient to overcome the hydraulic head and capillary forces? Is the proposed well density appropriate, given the total area to be cleaned up and the radius of influence of each well? Do the proposed well screen intervals account for contaminant plume location at the site? Is the proposed well configuration appropriate for the site conditions present? Is the air compressor selected appropriate for the desired sparge pressure? If nutrient addition is needed, are nutrient formulation and delivery rates appropriate for the site, based on laboratory or field studies? Have background concentrations of oxygen and CO2 (measured in pilot studies) been taken into account in establishing operating requirements?
4. Operation And Monitoring Plans Yes No t t Are manifold valving adjustments proposed during the first 7 to 10 days of operation? Are hourly recordings of injection and extraction rates, pressures, depth to groundwater, hydraulic gradient, and VOC levels proposed during the first 7 to 10 days of operation? Is daily monitoring of injection rates proposed during the first 7 to 10 days of operation? Are biweekly to monthly measurements of contaminant levels in groundwater, vapor wells, and blower exhausts proposed? Are biweekly to monthly measurements of vapor concentration proposed?
VIII-36
October 1994